describe_printer

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it says nothing about read-only safety, authentication, or error behavior for an unknown printer name. The list of returned attributes weakly implies a non-mutating lookup, but that is inference rather than disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact clause with no filler, and the most important content (what you get back) is front-loaded. It is a noun fragment rather than a complete sentence, which slightly weakens the lead.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the return contents but leaves the input contract and behavioral profile unaddressed. It is close to sufficient but has a clear gap on how to specify the printer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required 'printer' parameter, and the description does not say how a printer is identified (name, queue, ID, IP). The one parameter the agent must supply is left completely unexplained by both schema and prose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description enumerates the exact data the tool surfaces (papers, trays, media types, resolutions, printable area, saved profiles), which makes it clear this is a capability/configuration lookup for a single printer. It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from siblings like printer_status or list_printers, so an agent must infer the distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus printer_status, list_printers, or list_profiles, nor any prerequisites (does the printer need to be online? registered?). The implied use case is recoverable from the content list, but nothing is stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.